Skip Nav
Romantic Comedies
92 Romantic Movies You Can Stream on Netflix in September
17 Steamy Movies to Stream on Netflix Now
Tune In to the Sexiest TV Shows on Netflix in August

Headline: Ron Paul Heats Up Anti-abortion Rally

At an anti-abortion rally yesterday in DC marking the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, presidential candidate Ron Paul caught in a YouTube video, said the following,

The Constitution protects all life. Unless we resolve this tremendous moral dilemma, just think, today, a baby, one minute before life, deserves protection, and one minute after life, we still pretend it's called murder.

This revelation coincides with a big, perhaps surprising, endorsement for Ron Paul, from "Roe," now a staunch abortion opponent, named in the decision Roe v. Wade. In her endorsement, "Roe" (real name Norma McCorvey) said,

I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade. He has never wavered."

The endorsement sparked varied reactions from Paul supporters, as many are drawn to the candidate because of his positions against the Iraq War and favor of civil liberties, but may not be aware of the candidates stance on social issues like abortion.


Join The Conversation
Captious Captious 9 years
@remedios "The fed govt isn't restricting individual liberties here (consistent with libertarianism). If it were left to the state level, a true libertarian would also believe that states shouldn't restrict individual liberties." No. There is no libertarian position on abortion. A libertarian's position on abortion is dependent on whether the libertarian believes the fetus is a human. If they do not then what you said is the libertarian's position. If they DO believe the fetus is a human then abortion is violating someone's right to life and as the sole purpose of government is to enforce our rights abortion MUST be illegal.
Michelann Michelann 9 years
Mara_Viajera, it upsets me that somebody who works for the federal government knows so little about a wonderful candidate like Ron Paul. It upsets me even more that a government servant would suggest we should not pay attention to his ideas. All ideas are worth hearing and considering. Now, as to your comment that Dr. Paul "undermine(s) the agencies that are trying to improve the efficiency of the federal government so that it isn't as much of a behemoth", that is completely backwards. Dr. Paul wants to eliminate these government agencies BECAUSE the federal government is a behemoth. The federal government controls numerous things that are not explicitly spelled out in the constitution and would be more efficiently controlled at a state level. Furthermore, if you weren't so insistent on ignoring Ron Paul's ideas, you might have learned that Dr. Paul does exactly what you say about not taking a federal view on abortion. He believes that issue is best left to the states. I suggest you read more about Dr. Paul's ideas before you call him a "strange man" or misrepresent his positions.
mara_viajera mara_viajera 9 years
I detest Ron Paul, but that's because I work for the federal government. I think it is abhorable that a "champion of the constitution" works so hard to undermine the agencies that are trying to improve the efficiency of the federal government so that it isn't as much of a behemoth. Besides, if Ron Paul really wanted to go straight back to the constitution he would advocate no federal government position on anything, including abortion because the constitution says absolutely nothing about most issues one way or the other. And while abortion is an interesting debate, I think its sad that anyone is paying any attention to anything that this strange man says.
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
Exactly Jill. If I were to vote Democratic President I would vote for Obama. He still leans towards more of "Universal Health Care" but I don't find him nearly as bad as Hilary. I also don't feel he is a power hungry Socialist, that i feel Hilary is. It will be a very intersting election that is for sure. I am just bummed I am getting married one month before the elections. Talk about bad timing. I am going to have to have the tables done by Liberal and Conservative tables!
Jillness Jillness 9 years
It isn't legal to abort a baby that is 1 minute from being born. Cine, I also have issues with Hilary's plan to require health insurance or people get penalized. It is one of the reasons I support Obama. I wonder if it is intended to address illegal immigrants. Many hospitals have had to close because they can't refuse to help people in the emergency room, and if those people don't pay their bills the hospital has to operate at a loss. However, if you can't force someone to pay a hospital bill, how can you force them to pay a penalty? With cars, if you don't have liability insurance you get penalized becasue you can harm someone else with your car, and would need insurance to cover that. However, with health care, if someone else doesn't have insurance it doesn't hurt anyone except the hospital. I just don't see how an unpaid penalty would help that, though. As I said, if you can't force someone to pay a hospital bill, how can you force them to pay a penalty?
laura6567 laura6567 9 years
I'm (obviously) a Ron Paul supporter. I must say, this is one topic I disagree with him. HOWEVER, I completely respect his opinion. He is an OB-GYN and delivered over 4000 babies. I also agree with the point that it's legal to abort a baby one minute before it's born, but then the next minute, that baby who could still survive, is considered a murder victim. There obviously needs to be some regulations, and I agree it should be decided by the state (in that respect I agree with him; however, I am pro-choice). His point is just that it's a very fuzzy boundary and there is no easy answer
remedios remedios 9 years
adolgov - keep in mind that this rt to abortion doesn't come from legislation. The principle is that the govt - fed or state - CANNOT enact legislation, consistent with libertarianism. All the SC did was say to the govt - no, you don't have that power. What Paul seems to be espousing here is more like federalism, not libertarianism.
remedios remedios 9 years
cine_lover - Your question can go in a million different directions, so I'm going to have to make some assumptions. If you're looking for exact words, that's a silly question because you know it doesn't say those exact words, just like it doesn't say that "cine_lover has a right to wear a t-shirt that says 'abortion stops a beating heart'" but that doesn't mean you don't. So I'm going to assume that you're looking for how abortion falls under the protections in the Constitution that prohibit both state and federal govt from prohibiting it. As to the federal government making a ruling, again I'm going to have to make an assumption that you're asking how the federal court system, particularly the supreme court, can hear this case, since it didn't come from the executive or legislative branch. Article III of the Constitution grants the judiciary the power to hear the issues related to the power the govt has under the Constitution. Congress can enact laws under the Constitution. The SC determines if any given law is actually within the powers granted by the Constitution. You can look at Marbury v. Madison for the early interpretation of judicial power. One thing to keep in mind is that this issue is not one of the federal govt being able to do something; rather it's one of both the federal and state govts NOT being able to do something - restricting the power of the govt to enact a law. I'm not entirely sure if you're asking in general where this right comes from or how it extends to states. To the latter, that would be the 14th Amendment, which is interpreted to mean that states are not allowed to take away a fundamental right that citizens have. Essentially, the 14th Amendment "incorporates" the other rights to apply to states (the incorporation doctrine). That's why a state can't restrict your free speech, right to practice your own religion, right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, etc, any more than the federal govt can. Have you read the Roe v. Wade decision? It goes into detail to explain where in the Constitution you have certain rights that taken together give you a grant of the right to an abortion. That opinion is written much better than I can write, but I'll give it a shot. It starts before Roe though. Decisions prior to that explain that there is a right to privacy. But we know based on MANY cases that rights are not absolute. Govt can enact restrictions if the govt has an interest to do so. So with Roe, a woman of course has an interest in her own privacy. The moment the sperm enters the egg does not change that. What does change from that moment through birth is the interest the govt may have. I'm not sure which interest you focus on, but I'll assume the govt's interest in protecting potential life. When the Constitution and the 14th amendment were written, there's no evidence that indicates the writers meant to refer to the unborn in granting rts. This interest in protecting potential life weighed against privacy interests only begin to tip in the govt's favor when the baby/fetus is viable. (The govt also has an interest in protecting the life of pregnant women, and can enact restrictions before viability that are to achieve that goal.) This is already too huge a post so I'm going to stop, but if there's a particular issue you want to go into further, I'd be happy to. There are tons of issues in here. Also, there are exceptions to pretty much everything but for simplicity, I'm not focusing on that.
Princesskitty22 Princesskitty22 9 years
Popgoestheworld- I apologize if you felt like I was calling you out; it wasn't my intention. I totally agree that partial birth abortion shouldn't be legal; the people who endorse that are as bad as the anti-abortion people who blow up clinics. I guess I'm a little touchy about that issue. I had a friend who got a "lesson" at the catholic school she went to about abortion. They showed them a tape of several partial birth abortions being performed and told them that's how all abortions were performed. She knew that I was pro-choice and she came home crying and calling me names. It took hours before her mother (grudgingly) admitted that there was a difference. I just was saying that I'm sick of people using partial birth abortion to make pro-choice people look like monsters; I wasn't trying to say you were doing that.
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
Jillness, Hilary's health care forces people to have health care, which I feel gives the government too much power and power they should not have for many reasons, and forces people to pay for others health care and could include illegal immigrants. I should not be forced to have health care if I do not want it. It is one step away from Universal, but still gives the Federal Government too much power. Sorry for the short response. My brain feels really mushy today. Maybe too much popsugar....If that is possible. ;)
adolgov adolgov 9 years
Regarding the "I guess he's not a libertarian" thing: The libertarian stance has always been to overturn Roe v. Wade because the constitutional scope of power of the federal government requires it. If you phrase it as "Should the federal government have any say over what you can and cannot do with your body?", the libertarian answer is clearly "no," and that very statement mandates that Roe v. Wade be overturned. The libertarian position for the states follows the same pattern: no laws banning or guaranteeing abortions. Same for local governments. Just because someone does not want to guarantee legal abortions at the federal level, doesn't mean that they want to outlaw them on the state level. I understand the frustration and trying to work within the system that we have now, but it's difficult to get behind the "two wrongs making a right" mentality that Roe v. Wade establishes. Personally, I support abortions, and I very much dislike the terms "pro life," "pro choice," "anti-life," and "anti choice." I disagree with Ron Paul on his personal abortion beliefs; however, the great thing about principles and libertarianism is that you don't impose your personal beliefs on others via legislation, and everyone is free to live with the beliefs that they choose, wrong or right as they may be.
Jillness Jillness 9 years
I haven't heard anything about Pharmacists writing prescriptions. That would be scary! Prescription drugs have such consequences...that is why they are a highly controlled substance. I think the term "Universal" has been misinterpreted when it comes to health care. Let me know if I am wrong! In Obama's plan, he wants to make it affordable to everyone. In Hilary's plan, she wants to make it affordable for everyone and penalize people if they don't chose to buy it. No one is saying that all Americans should get their health care through the government, it is only an option if you can't afford a plan through a standard insurance company. Both recognize that many Americans already have a private health care plan that they like, and they wont take that away.
DoctorBunBun DoctorBunBun 9 years
Oh wow... He certainly does NOT seem Libertarian, anymore.
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
Jillness I completely agree with you that it is the doctors job to decide birth control and other medical needs. That is why I am against universal health care. I don't think that everyone who lives in the state agrees with state laws, but I do feel it speaks more for the community then federal laws do. I also find it disturbing, (I have not read much on it so please feel free to correct me) that they may be passing a law that allows pharmacists to write prescriptions. We are already and over perscribed nation, can you even imagine what it will become if that passes?
Jillness Jillness 9 years
Cine, I don't think that a State should be able to decide if a woman can get her birth control pills. That is not the role of the government or the state. It is her DOCTOR's job to decide if birth control pills are right for her. Even if a state votes something into law, you can't assume that everyone in the state agrees. Not everyone gets to chose what state they live in, especially young adults. Birth Control pills are prescribed for a number of reasons (not just pregnancy prevention). Taking someone's medical treatment away from them is a VERY SERIOUS thing, and should not be decided on by the masses who aren't qualified to make such decisions.
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
Actually I should clarify, wher does it say in the Constitution the the Federal Government has the right to make a ruling about abortion?
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
Remedios, Where in the Constitution does it say that you have the right to an abortion?
popgoestheworld popgoestheworld 9 years
Princesskitty, I'm pro-choice and I brought up partial birth abortion, not as a scare tactic, but as a point that to me there is a difference between that and a "typical" abortion. I was listening to an NPR story about people who are outraged about the ban on partial birth abortion because they believe it should be the mother's decision. I think abortions should be legal up to a certain point. But I personally draw the line at partial-birth, and I know LOTS of pro-choicers who don't. It's not a scare tactic, it's a reality, and there are tons of people pushing it get it legal again. Anyway, I brought it up because Ron Paul's quote in the article above specifically refers to partial birth abortion, so it seems to relate to the posted topic.
remedios remedios 9 years
"Ron wants Roe vs. Wade overturned not because he thinks abortions should be illegal, he wants it overturned because he believes the U.S. Government shouldn't be able to pass a law saying a state isn't allowed to outlaw something." That's two different things in there - one is whether abortion should or should not be legal, the second is whether that evaluation should be handled at the fed or state level. Based on his quote above, I disagree with your assessment of the former question. I think he does want abortion to be illegal. As to the second issue, you might be right, but he's supposed to be a libertarian who believes in limiting the role of govt intruding on what others may and may not do. The principle applies not just to a federal govt. The fed govt isn't restricting individual liberties here (consistent with libertarianism). If it were left to the state level, a true libertarian would also believe that states shouldn't restrict individual liberties. Also, the fed govt hasn't passed a law saying states aren't allowed to outlaw abortions. The decision was based on the Constitution, not on some statute. States can't pass any law they want to if it violates the rights and due process from the Constitution. The Roe decision says that abortion is one of those rights, so neither federal nor state govts can outlaw it. It's not just a restriction on states.
melizzle melizzle 9 years
I'm all for the government laying its hands off my body. And my money, my healthcare and other things that are best left to individual choice. But that's a discussion for another time, another post. :) Stand up for choice, ladies!
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
Thanks Brandy. I am not great at it either. I tried to find information on it but came up empty handed. And Hurray for Ron Paul pointing out that we have thrown out our Constitution by making the Federal Government so strong. Bring power back to the States!
I'm gonna try and find a link about the adoption process in Texas, but I'm very bad at that type of thing.
Arthur Arthur 9 years
All the comments prompted me to go see where Ron Paul stands. If you're curious too:
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
Well at least the common theme here is promotion of education, which I think is a step in the right direction no matter what your stance is. And as for adoption in Texas, i can't honestly say what it is like there, but I can tell you, California, New Jersey, Hawaii, Washington, New York and Connecticut are not like that. And trust me, if more couples knew how it was in Texas they would move there just to adopt babies. Do you think you could send me a link about adoption in Texas? Because if this is truly how it is then I would like to get a petition started and write some letters. Partial Birth abortion was made legal by Bill Clinton and was later reversed by George Bush. Probably the one thing he did right. I am a pro-lifer and I know around here I am in the minority, but I just wanted to say I do respect all the women here and their opinions and am really proud that everyone kept this a clean debate.
Princesskitty22 Princesskitty22 9 years
But I also agree that it will go on forever and ever and ever. It's one of those arguments that just won't go away.
Prince Philip Over the Years
Economics of Abortion
Pregnancy Test in Glow
JonBenet Ramsey Murder Case Information
From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds